§
10A. In section 6 of the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1975 (valuation by formula of certain lands and heritages) for subsection (I) there shall be substituted the following subsection—
(1) In the case of such lands and heritages as may be prescribed or of any class or description of such lands and heritages as may be prescribed, the Secretary of State may by order provide that their rateable values or the aggregate amount of their rateable values shall be—

(a) such as is prescribed; or

(b) such as is determined in accordance with prescribed rules.".").

§
The noble Lord said: I have already spoken to Amendment No. 194ZD, which is grouped with Amendment No. 194ZCA. I beg to move.

§
"(1) Notwithstanding that an appeal under the Valuation Acts is pending with respect to any lands and heritages the rates levied on those lands and heritages shall be payable in accordance with section 8 of this Act.".

§
(2) The amendment made by sub-pararaph (1) above shall not have effect as regards any lands and heritages with respect to which an appeal under the Valuation Acts is pending at the date of commencement of that sub-paragraph.").

§
The noble Lord said: I shall explain Amendments Nos. 194ZE and 194ZF together because they are part and parcel of the same measure.

§
Amendment No. 194ZE requires a ratepayer to pay his rates bill in full pending the outcome of his appeal, which is the position in England and Wales. If the appeal is successful, Amendment No. 194ZF requires the rating authority to repay not only the amount overpaid but also, where that amount is in excess of a prescribed limit, interest on that amount at a rate set by the Secretary of State.

§
I appreciate that some Members may be concerned at the proposal that ratepayers be required to pay their rates bills in full pending appeal rather than nine-tenths of the bill as at present. I suggest, however, that the minor benefits to the ratepayer of retaining 10 per cent. of his rates bill are more than offset by the administrative difficulties that this causes for the rating authorities. Currently, whether an appeal is successful or not, the amount paid requires to be adjusted, and that can result in considerable work for the rating authorities. Against this the advantages for the ratepayer are not great, particularly when it is recalled that he requires to make provision to meet the full cost of his rates bill should his appeal be unsuccessful.

§
I accept that where an appeal is successful the ratepayer will in effect have made a loan to the rating authority of the amount by which his rates bill is reduced on appeal. It is only proper where this is a significant amount that the authority should pay interest to the ratepayer for the use of his money during the period of the appeal. It is this requirement to pay interest not only in the case of a successful appeal but also where an error has been made in the rates bill in the authority's favour that Amendment No. 194ZF seeks to introduce.

§
The amendments together are to the benefit of ratepayer and rating authority alike. They are also to the benefit of all ratepayers in that they remove any encouragement to lodge appeals where no real grounds exist. Such appeals slow down the whole process to the detriment of those with genuine grievances. I ask the Committee to accept the amendment. I beg to move.

It is interesting to hear the Minister speak about convenience to the rating authorities. That would have been met with much greater appreciation if the rating authorities had been consulted about the amendment. It appears to have come from St. Andrew's House after no consultation with any rate-receiving authority. The Minister will doubtless be able to tell us why it is of such great interest to the rating authorities, which have never asked for it. However, so be it.

Why is the charge to be made? If somebody appeals against his rates assessment he does not have to pay
445
the full amount of the rates. The time taken for an appeal is alarmingly long. We are still dealing with appeals from the 1985 valuation. I understand that the period for appeals to be disposed of will have to be extended yet again. If that is so, and if somebody is appealing because he has not been de-rated, the amount of money at stake may be considerable. This appears to be a backdoor way in which, for administrative convenience of government—in the sense of central government and local government—the ratepayer is suddenly to be asked to pay the full amount instead of a restricted amount pending the appeal. For the sake of freedom of the individual, something to which I thought the Government occasionally paid some lip service—I am receiving what no doubt is a critical glance from the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy of Lour. I thought that the Government occasionally considered the interests of ratepayers. Why is it in the interests of ratepayers that they should have to pay the full amount instead of only a proportion of the amount pending the appeal?

A considerable proportion of appeals are successful. If we are looking for harmonisation between England and Scotland, it may be that the individual ratepayer would prefer the Scottish position to the English position. Therefore I am dubious whether this provision is really necessary, whether it is demanded by the industrial and commercial ratepayers in Scotland and whether there is anything behind it other than sheer administrative convenience.

It is all very well to say that it is just administrative convenience, but the noble Lord will be well aware that administrative convenience can also save money. The saving of money by a local authority in turn must save money for the ratepayer himself. The expenditure goes down and therefore there is a saving to be made.

I understand the noble Lord's perfecty legitimately held view that one way forward is to pay nine-tenths of the bill and wait for the appeal to go through. The Government feel on this occasion that the provisions in the Bill for dealing with appeals are a better way forward than the present position in Scotland. The noble Lord and his party are entitled to their view, hut nothing he said convinces me that the change is for the worse.

I am obliged to the Minister. It would be much easier to know whether this proposal was for the worse or the better. Have the Government consulted any of the rate collecting authorities in Scotland? It is my understanding that there was no consultation whatever and that this provision has been brought in because it suits England and Wales.

It may be that in England and Wales appeals can be disposed of much more quickly. It would be alarming to think of anything much slower than the way in which we in Scotland manage to dispose of valuation appeals. It is really appalling. However, before bringing forward the amendment, would it not have been better to at least consult the people who are involved in rating appeals?

We could go on and talk about consultation but we shall come to that later this evening. I am looking forward to discussing consultation in regard to other matters. Bearing in mind that domestic rates will cease and therefore the case load will become smaller, there are grounds to hope that delays will be reduced considerably. I speak as someone who was involved in business in Scotland. I am perfectly certain that industry will welcome this procedure and therefore I cannot agree with the views expressed by the noble Lord.

I am pleased to hear that this will be welcomed by industry in Scotland and I am surprised to hear that industry, which is not unaccustomed to appealing against valuations, is happy to pay 100 per cent. on the spot instead of nine-tenths. That seems strange, but no doubt the Minister has consulted the CBI, the Council for Development in Industry, or both, and is able to tell us the results of those consultations; or has this been thought up without consultation by St. Andrew's House? The noble Lord has said what industry will think. Perhaps he will be able to tell us whether there has been any consultation about this amendment.

In answer to the noble Lord, the consultations which have taken place within government have brought us to the conclusion that this is the best way forward on a United Kingdom basis. From his many contributions to these valuable debates I should have thought that the noble Lord believed in harmonisation north and south of the Border. I should have thought that it would be useful for the noble Lord to realise that in some areas it is better to try to harmonise on these matters, especially when many companies north and south of the Border have branches on either side of it. It is very much easier to have a system which is the same right across the United Kingdom.

I am glad that we have established, first, that there was no consultation and that therefore this is being imposed by the Government without consultation with industry or business; and, secondly, that harmonisation is not to be on the basis of the way rating is approached, which is what we were discussing earlier, but that we in Scotland are to do whatever central government or St. Andrew's House decide is reasonable. That is what we on this side of the Committee sometimes cynically thought. It is nice to get confirmation from the Minister.

§
9A.—(1) Where any amount, in excess of such limit as may be prescribed, has been paid in error to a rating authority in respect of rates and the rating authority in respect of rates and the rating authority repays the amount the rating authority shall also pay to the person to whom the repayment is made interest on the
447
amount at such rate as may be determined in accordance with subsection (3) below.

§
(2) No payment of interest under subsection (1) above shall be made after the end of the sixth year after that in respect of which the amount was paid in error unless application for repayment was made before that time.

§
(3) The rate of interest referred to in subsection (1) shall be such rate—

(a) as the Secretary of State may prescribe; or

(b) as is to be determined in such manner as he may prescribe,

and regulations made under this subsection may not make provision for a rate of interest in respect of any period before the regulations come into force.

§
(4) Subsections (1), (2) and (3) above shall apply to the repayment of the amount of an overpayment which a rating authority is required to repay under section 9(2) of this Act as they apply to the repayment of an amount referred to in the said subsection (1).

§
(5) This section shall not require the payment of interest in respect of any period before the commencement of paragraph 10C of Schedule 15 to the Local Government Finance Act 1988; and subsection (4) above shall not have effect in relation to any repayment in consequence of an appeal which was lodged before such commencement.".").

§
The noble Lord said: If it will be convenient for the Committee, I shall group Amendment No. 194ZG with Amendments Nos. 194ZY, 194ZZ, 194ZZA, 194ZZB, 194ZZC, 194ZZD, 194ZZE, 194ZZF, 206E and 194ZZZ, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Morton of Shuna.

§
The government amendments in this group are a miscellaneous set of amendments dealing with a number of issues relating to community charge payment and collection. They fall into five groups, which I shall deal with in turn. Amendment No. 194ZG will allow the Secretary of State to issue to local authorities a code of practice setting out the information to be sent to community charge payers along with their demand notices. At present additional information on local authority expenditure is provided on a separate statement issued at the time of the demand notices for rates. This procedure was established in 1982, when the Secretary of State issue a code of practice under the provision of Part II of the Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980. We intend to issue an updated code of practice which will cover the information to be issued with community charge demand notices—for instance, the amount that a local authority is proposing to spend on each of the services it provides. The code of practice will of course be the subject of consultation with local authorities.

§
The amendment puts Scotland on a similar basis to England and Wales, where my right honourable friend intends to use his order-making powers under Clause 141of the Bill to set out a code of practice. The amendment simply puts it beyond doubt that a similar course may be followed in Scotland.

§
The second main topic dealt with by this group of amendments is that of discounts and incentives, provided for by Amendment No. 194ZZ. The amendment allows local authorities to offer discounts or other incentives to encourage payment arrangements which will be of financial benefit to local authorities. I should emphasise that we are bringing forward the amendment in response to suggestions from local authority interests themselves. Provision for discounts for early payment of the community charge in England and Wales is already included in paragraph 5 of Schedule 2 to the Bill.

§
The kind of arrangements we have in mind are for discounts to be made available if a person agrees to pay the full personal community charge as a single lump sum payment early in the financial year. The extent of the discount which may be made available is restricted by my right honourable friend's power to prescribe a limit, and we do not envisage that the discount should be more than a few percentage points of the payment.

§
On the question of incentives, we envisage that these might take the form of a reduced charge for local authority services such as recreational facilities or entry into a prize competition. Again, this is made available with the safeguard that the cost of the inducement taken with the cost of any reduction in liability offered should not exceed the savings which accrue to local authorities under the agreements reached.

§
I should stress that the main method of payment for the community charges will remain as 12 monthly instalments. However, the amendment gives local authorities a desirable degree of flexibility to maximise their cash flow in appropriate cases.

§
The third point covered by the amendments is the repeal of sub-paragraph (4) of paragraph 7 of Schedule 2 to the 1987 Act. That is dealt with by Amendments Nos. 194ZZD and 206E. The repeal removes the requirement for a levying authority to apply for a court decree, rather than a summary warrant, in cases where it is basing recovery action on joint and several liability for the personal community charge. That provision was included because joint and several liability is not a registration matter and cannot therefore form the subject of an appeal to the sheriff at the point of registration.

§
It was therefore provided that, where recovery action was based on joint and several liability, it should be necessary for the levying authority to obtain a decree so that the court could have a full opportunity to consider the substantive issue of whether joint and several liability in fact applies. The amendment we have made to Schedule 2 to the 1987 Act in sub-paragraphs (3) and (4) of paragraph 26 of Schedule 15 to the Bill provides for the substantive issue on joint and several liability to be considered by the levying authority, and by the sheriff on appeal, when there is an appeal against a demand notice
449
based on joint and several liability. There is therefore no need to restrict the subsequent recovery action to the obtaining of a court decree. As opportunity will have been available for the substantive issue to be considered previously in all cases, there is no reason why recovery should not be pursued by way of summary warrant.

§
The final substantive amendment in the group is Amendment No. 194ZZE, which remedies an omission in the 1987 Act.

§
Paragraph 14 of Schedule 2 to the Bill enables the Secretary of State to make regulations providing that in carrying out its functions under the Bill charging authorities in England and Wales may make use of information obtained under other Acts, unless that information falls within a prescribed description of information which cannot be used. The amendment makes similar provision for Scotland. A power to use such information would, for example, enable a levying authority to check from its other records whether a person who has defaulted on payment of his community charge is married and thus to decide whether it should invoke the joint and several liability provisions of the 1987 Act in order to effect recovery of the amount outstanding.

§
Finally, I turn to the other amendments in this group; namely, Amendments Nos. 194ZY, 194ZZA, 194ZZB, 194ZZC and 194ZZF. They are either purely drafting amendments or amendments to ensure that the arrangements for levying and collecting the community water charges are on all fours with the corresponding arrangements for levying and collecting the community charges themselves. There is no policy content in the amendments. I beg to move.

It must be said that this is a fairly wide-ranging group of amendments; and one sometimes wonders how such groups come into being. However, I shall deal with them as best I can, without trying to send Members of the Committee to sleep, as Amendment No. 194ZZZ, tabled in my name, is apparently designed to do.

The first point I should like to make is that at present there is a voluntary code on what is sent out with the rates notice. Indeed, this has been a matter of discussion and agreement between the various local authorities and the Government at certain times. We are now told —and it is nice to be told with no statutory backing—that there will be consultation. Apparently the Secretary of State will lay down regulations as to what is to happen in regard to the notices.

As I have said, it is nice to know that there will be such consultation, but there is nothing in the Bill which specifies that there will be consultation. Therefore we are far from certain whether consultation means what the dictionary says it means or whether it means that the Government are saying, "This is what we intend to do. We will give you a week to agree to it but, if you do not agree, we will pass the regulations". We are not at all satisfied with the situation although it is perhaps a minor point.

The Minister may be quite happy to know that I have no comments or objections to make on
450
Amendment No. 194ZY. However, Amendment No. 194ZZ is a different matter altogether. Indeed, I have an amendment to it, which the Deputy Chairman of Committees will have to deal with when it is called. Paragraph 4B(1) of Amendment No. 194ZZ provides that local authorities may,
offer inducements of a financial or other nature (including inducements in the forms of chances in a local lottery within the meaning of section 6(1) of the Lotteries and Amusements Act 1976)".
As I understand it, what happened was that when the Government put down the amendment the local authorities, through CoSLA—Convention of Scottish Local Authorities—wrote and asked what it meant. I think that the provision appeared first and then the amendment came out. The idea that most local authorities in Scotland are asking for a local lottery to induce people to pay their community charge early seems slightly bizarre. For example, I doubt whether this request came from the Western Islands Council. Indeed, I should have thought that this is completely outwith the general Scottish approach. Therefore that is the purpose of Amendment No. 194ZZZ, which is tabled in my name. I must say that I am very proud to have been able to achieve an amendment which has so many letters after it.

The purpose of the amendment is to make the inducement a purely financial one. Of course I am happy with that proposal. If there is to be some power to give a discount to a payer of the charges who pays the full charge at once, that is fine. To my recollection, that situation occurred before 1973 or 1974 when many local authorities had a provision that if one paid one's total rates bill by a certain date then one received a certain discount. That would seem to be perfectly reasonable. However, the idea of taking chances in a local lottery seems to be something entirely un-Scottish. It may go with the sort of English behaviour that we have noticed in Dusseldorf, but we do not want that brought into Scotland. I am sorry if my noble friend beside me is getting upset. I do not think that he was in Dusseldorf. It is in that frame of mind that I shall move my amendment. There is a strong case for offering a discount but not for offering free laundry facilities, free rides in the local circus or chances in the local lottery.

The next stage is Amendment No. 194ZZD. I have great difficulty with that amendment. Its purpose appears to be that a married couple will receive a notice when the demand notice is sent out which, in my understanding, will be in the first half of April each year. They will then have a short period within which to appeal. The provision does not cover married couples only. It covers the circumstances referred to in Aberdeen as a "bidey-in". There seems to be a strange idea, about which I have often complained, that with this legislation the Government do not appear to live in the real world. This is a wonderful example of that attitude. In effect what is said here that a man and a woman living together at the beginning of April will accept joint and several liability. That means that they will not separate until some time about the end of March the following year.

451
My recollection of practice in the divorce courts is that the separation of married people was not restricted to the first half of April in any one year. They separated at various times during the year. My recollection of the Abolition of Domestic Rates (Scotland) Act is that one is liable for one's spouse only during the period when one is living with him or her. If one has a restricted time after the notice demanding joint and several payment is served in April, what will happen if, at the end of May, the couple separates? What will happen if in June one or both decide to live with different people? It seems to me, with all respect to the Government, that they have not thought the matter out at all.

The position, as I understood it before, was that in April each person in the couple received a demand notice; and, although it was described as a joint and several liability, it was in fact a cautionary liability because the person who did not pay (the other party)—it is difficult, and I should talk about the married couple only—the spouse, incurred a liability once the other spouse did not pay. The Government are changing that. The Government are saying that if John and Janet—to use simple language that we have all learnt in school from the age of five—are living together in April, they have a joint and several liability. If they are not living together, one of them can then appeal to the sheriff. If the time for appeal expires, they are presumed not to have separated until the following year's demand notice goes out. With all respect to the Minister, that is daft, because it is totally unreal. People separate at times of the year other than April. There is nothing in the Abolition of Domestic Rates (Scotland) Act to say that it is only then that people may cease to live together. We should go back to the old system, which may be rather awkward but which at least has some basis in reality. This provision is completely unreal.

I turn to Amendment No. 194ZZE. It relates to the exchange of information, which the Government say is the same as in the English legislation. However, I wonder whether the Government have consulted the Data Protection Act and want to drive a coach and horses through it. If so, why? They have not explained that provision. Perhaps the Minister can explain all those points in this rather heterogenous group and then we may see where we go from there.

Before my noble friend replies, I must say to the noble Lord, Lord Morton of Shuna, that although his instinct may be that it is extremely un-Scottish to have anything to do with a lottery, Tayside Regional Council mooted the idea of a lottery to raise money for sports and leisure facilities. A number of councillors objected strongly to that idea. They said they could not possibly vote for it. They went home for the weekend. When they came back the following week they had to confess that they could not find anyone who objected to such a proposal. Tayside Regional Council ran a successful lottery. Everyone rather enjoyed and accepted it. It is not necessarily an un-Scottish notion, although of course the lottery was not applied to paying for the community charge. It was to raise money for local government facilities. One should
452
not jump too quickly to conclusions about what is Scottish and what is not. I was a little concerned about the noble Lord's reference to English football hooligans. I do not think that we can be too sure that that is always a purely English manifestation.

I hope that I did not give the impression that only the English went in for certain forms of football hooliganism. No one who is a Scot would ever have suggested that, nor would anyone who reads the newspapers. All I was trying to suggest was that to ask people who are provident and want to pay their debts early to take part in a lottery does not necessarily fit all elements of all Scots. I think the provision needs to be thought out. In the past week or two since it was produced, the amendment has brought forward a certain amount of criticism.

Just to follow what the noble Lord said, I do not believe that he had realised that a lottery had been run by at least one local authority in Scotland. I do not know whether it has been done by others. It was accepted by people. The council did not push it, but people backed it and enjoyed it.

It is one thing to give the prospect of a lottery to anyone who cares to take part by buying a ticket in the lottery; it is another thing to say to anyone who wants to pay their whole debt to the local authority that by doing so they take part in a lottery. I can think of a few people who have a strongly rooted objection, which I fully accept even if I do not always agree with it, to taking part in any form of gambling. We should recognise that feeling. I should have thought that it would be better that the financial inducement should be restricted to a financial discount. That is the purpose of my amendment.

Just for once I must say that I am in agreement with the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy, and not with the noble Lord, Lord Morton of Shuna. I accept that those objections exist, but, if I have understood the proposal aright, it is not being proposed that anyone should be forced to take part in a lottery. I must admit that I also take some exception to the comparison of lotteries with football hooliganism. It seems to me that one of them does no harm to anyone except possibly to the participant and probably not to him either. The other does a good deal of harm to other people. On the other hand, if the noble Lord, Lord Morton of Shuna, had concentrated on the question whether a lottery will raise enough money to make a statistically significant contribution to paying off the community charge, he might perhaps have been on rather stronger ground.

I am sorry, if I could, I would willingly withdraw anything I said about the football hooligans whom the noble Earl is so anxious
453
to defend. The point, as I understand it, is different. If I pay my rate, my community charge, in a lump sum early, and if I happen to be in a local authority which has decided on a lottery, I gather I do not get a financial discount, I do not get anything. If the local authority so decide, then I get a chance in a lottery. I may have a rooted objection to taking part in any lottery. Why should the local authority make that decision for me?

As we said at the beginning of this discussion, this grouping of amendments covers a very wide spectrum. I shall do my best to deal with the three points which I think the noble Lord, Lord Morton of Shuna, brought to our notice.

Perhaps I may deal first with the point about the code of practice. At present Section 3 of the 1980 Act provides that the Secretary of State may make regulations requiring local authorities to adhere to any code of practice in respect of rates issued under Section 2. It has not proved necessary so far to invoke this provision but the option is available, should it prove necessary to use it. We envisage that voluntary arrangements will similarly be effective under the community charge system.

Perhaps I may move now to deal with the noble Lord's famous amendment, which was meant to put everyone to sleep but which in fact has not put me to sleep. I understand the reference to local lotteries, about which there has been so much comment in recent days. As we see, it comes from the amendment which the noble Lord has put down and which deals with the provision by local authorities of discounts and incentives to encourage people to enter into payment arrangements for the community charge which are of financial benefit to the local authority.

The most obvious example is a lump sum payment at the start of the year, which both saves the local authority the administrative costs of handling 12 monthly payments and gives it the cash flow advantage of having money in hand. The provision of a discount or other incentive to encourage such payments seems entirely reasonable, and I am pleased to hear that the noble Lord, Lord Morton of Shuna, agrees with that part.

The amendment however goes wider than the straightforward provision of discounts because in the course of consultations with local authorities in Scotland it was suggested that it should. One proposition was that certain benefits might be offered to those who entered into more economic arrangements such as direct debit. For example, they might enjoy reduced charges for local authority facilities such as swimming pools.

It was also suggested that they might have prize draws, as the noble Lord mentioned. Local authorities of course have established powers to run local lotteries. They were given these in 1975 in the Lotteries Act 1975 and the provisions were subsequently incorporated in the Lotteries and Amusements Act 1976 in the subsection referred to in the amendment, which was brought forward by the party of the noble Lord opposite.

I understand that these measures were not the subject of party political discussions and were
454
considered by Parliament entirely on their merits and in a non-partisan spirit. It is arguable that levying authorities for the community charge would already have power to offer inducements in the form of chances in a local lottery because the 1976 Act empowers local authorities to promote a local lottery for any purpose for which they have power to incur expenditure under any enactment.

However, it was thought that in view of the fact that specific provision was being made empowering a levying authority to offer inducements, it should be made clear that these inducements would take the form of chances in a local lottery. The amendment therefore merely clarifies the position and that is why the reference to local lotteries which it contains is in the form of a parenthetical aside—that is, in brackets. Members of the Committee will have noticed press reports in which CoSLA confirms that its discussions with the Scottish Office suggested that clarification of the existing powers about inducements was needed. That is precisely what we have provided.

Perhaps I may make two general points. First, provisions for discounts or any other form of incentives are entirely discretionary. There is no question of the Government forcing or requiring local authorities to operate any such schemes as seems to have been inferred in some of the press comment at the weekend. Secondly, any arrangements which local authorities make must be self-financing. There is absolutely no justification for the assumption that discounts or any other forms of incentives will be given to those who can afford to pay early, at the expense of other community charge payers.

Perhaps I may finish. If the noble Lord does not mind, I should just like to complete this section because it is quite important. Since the amendment was tabled it has attracted a lot of comment, both in this House and more particularly outside. The points which the noble Lord makes are very relevant. I think I interpret the feelings of those to whom I have spoken. On balance it would be preferable for prize draws or lotteries perhaps not to be available within the range of actions which local authorities may take to encourage people to enter into forms of payment arrangements. This is not a matter on which the Government feel strongly. They acted on the advice of those who were in the local authority area. We would not have included the point had it not been mentioned to us.

As a matter of legal technicality however, I cannot simply accept the amendment which the noble Lord, Lord Morton of Shuna, puts forward. By removing the parenthetical reference we should merely be returning to the position in which clarification was called for in the first case where, under the powers of the Lotteries and Amusement Acts 1976, local authorities might well have power to offer prize draws as an incentive in this case. However, in the
455
light of the views which have been expressed, I undertake to consider very carefully whether the reference to local lotteries needs to remain. I shall raise the matter again on Report and bring forward an amendment if I judge that to be necessary.

Finally, the point was made about joint and several liability. I think that was on Amendment No. 194ZZD. Notices based on joint and several liability will only be issued after there has been a failure to pay one or both of the community charges. There is then a full right of appeal to the sheriff. There is absolutely no suggestion that couples would automatically receive joint and several notices at the beginning of each year.

I hope that the remarks I have made have clarified the Government's views on the various points raised.

On the question of lotteries, I should have thought that the way out would perhaps be to make sure that, if a lottery is to be permissible, it should be provided for those who have a rooted objection, if I may put it that way, that they are bound to receive a straight financial incentive rather than a chance in a lottery. I think that would be one way out of it.

As regards the married people, my understanding is, I am afraid, different. The demand notice that is referred to in Amendment No. 194ZZD is, I understand, the demand notice that we are talking about in Schedule 2 to the 1987 Act. It is the demand notice for the payment of the community charge. That is the only demand notice we are talking about at this stage and it is the demand notice that each of us who resides in Scotland will receive sometime in April next year, 1989. It is that demand notice against which apparently under Amendment No. 194ZZD the couple if—I may refer to them as such—have the right to appeal. How they can say that they will enjoy life together, whether they are married or believe themselves to be married, I do not understand.

If we are talking about a different demand notice, that is not clear from the amendment, and it is not clear to me in such reading as I have been able to do of the Abolition of Domestic Rates Etc. (Scotland) Act. There appears to be only one demand notice. That is the demand notice for the community charge. Perhaps I am totally misunderstanding this position, but if "demand notice" is used with two different meanings in the one Act, let us find out about that now and call it by different names when it means different things. There is no doubt that the demand notice which the Minister is talking about is different from the demand notice that I understand from reading Schedule 2 of the 1987 Act.

Before the Minister responds, there was one phrase that he used which I do not have exactly right and which puzzled me very much. He said that there was no question of offering financial inducements to those who were very well able to pay on time. I must have misunderstood the Minister. I do not understand how one can discriminate between those who are making an effort to pay on time and need the inducements and those who are very well able to pay on time.

I do not think that I said that. However, I shall look very carefully at what is printed in Hansard. Of course the inducements are available to those who can afford to pay on time. That is what helps a local authority in its cash flow position.

As regards the point made about joint and several liability, page 147 of the Bill states in Schedule 15(26)(3):
(a) the levying authority shall not issue a demand notice before the date prescribed under paragraph 2(1) above",
and so on. That is the joint and several demand notice. It is not issued in April. If the noble Lord wishes to study Schedule 15(26)(2A) he may like to enlighten me as to whether or not he has a point on this.

I think that I have. It is very difficult to wander from a schedule to one Act to a schedule to another Bill, but, on page 147 of the Bill that we are discussing, paragraph 26 refers to:
Schedule 2 to that Act".
I think that that refers to Schedule 2 to the 1987 Act. Schedule 15 (26) (2) to the Bill refers to:
paragraph 2(1) (demand notices)".
The demand notice in Schedule 2 of the Abolition of Domestic Rates Etc. (Scotland) Act is the demand notice that we receive, or will receive, in April of next year which will tell us that the community charge is x pounds and that we have to pay it. If my reading of this is right—of course I may be totally wrong, but I think I read things more or less as a normal person would—that is the demand notice meant. It is not a later demand notice that is made when someone has failed to pay. I shall certainly study what the Minister has said, but I think that he is using "demand notice" in two different ways—using the meaning that it has under the Bill and the other meaning that it has under the Act. If that is really what he intends, it will cause desperate confusion.

I venture to intervene because I think that the noble Lord. Lord Morton of Shuna, may not be taking account of the fact that paragraph 26 of Schedule 15 provides for a demand note in a situation other than the ordinary situation which is provided for in paragraph 2(1) of Schedule 2 to the Act of 1987. In effect it says that—to take the paradigm case—where there is joint and several liability and one of the persons has not paid, there will be a possibility of a demand in respect of that person's liability against the person who is jointly and severally liable with that person. That is the demand that can occur after the failure of payment by the first person who is in question.

It is not a matter of a demand note being used in different senses. It is that there is more than one situation described in which a demand note may be issued. This is dealing with a particular type of situation—namely, where one of the spouses has defaulted and has not paid within the due time. In that situation a demand note can be issued, not in April but at the time of the failure. Then there is a period of appeal that follows on that. That is what I think the provision means, but obviously there is room for me to be corrected on the point.

I have no doubt that that is what it was intended to mean, but I do not know whether that is what it does mean. The noble and learned Lord referred to Schedule 15(26)(2) to the Bill. That states:
In paragraph 2(1) (demand notices) at the beginning there shall be inserted—'Subject to paragraph 2A below'".
Paragraph 2 of Schedule 2 to the 1987 Act states:
every levying authority shall, in respect of the financial year 1989–1990 and of each subsequent financial year, issue, before such date in relation to each of those years as may be prescribed, to every person liable to pay … a notice in respect of that liability (in this Act referred to as a 'demand notice').
That is the notice that we shall all receive in April of next year. If it is intended that a demand notice is also to mean a different thing, which is what the noble and learned Lord appeared to say—that, for example, come July the spouse of the delinquent who has failed to pay the three months' instalment will suddenly receive a notice saying that Jenny Smith has not paid and the authorities think the people concerned have been living together—it is confusing to refer to that in the same schedule as a demand notice.

This could go on, subject to patience, almost indefinitely. The noble Lord will notice that in Schedule 15(26)(2), amending Schedule 2 to the 1987 Act, it states:
Subject to paragraph 2A below".
That paragraph—2A—inserts a further situation in which a demand note to pay a community charge may be issued. That is where:
a person's liability to pay a community charge arises only by virtue of section 8(7) of this Act (joint and several liability)".
Therefore it is saying that in addition to demand notes that are issued in respect of the primary liability to pay the community charge, they may also be issued in respect of the secondary liability to pay the community charge. The second type of demand note shall be issued only after such time as it appears to the local authority that it will be unable to recover payment of the community charge from the other person who is liable to pay. That is the way I understand it. However, as I say, I am subject to correction and perhaps we should look at the matter again. I intervened only because I thought I understood the matter.

I have no doubt that the noble and learned Lord has an advantage in the general quickness of his understanding compared with mine. However, the amendment appears to use "a demand notice" twice in the same schedule meaning different types of notice. That seems to me to be confusing. With respect, and from such knowledge of the law as I retain after being down here for far too long, we are not talking about joint and several liability. We are talking about cautionary liability. We are only bringing in the liability after the debtor has failed to pay. It does not appear to me that that assists at all. However, if the noble and learned Lord, assisted by the Minister, will look at the matter carefully and sort out Schedule 2 to the 1987 Act and
458
Schedule 15 to the Bill, I with interest to see what happens.

§
Page 143, line 12, at end insert—
("( ) After subsection (5) there shall be inserted the following subsection—(5A) The Secretary of State may, by regulations made under this subsection—

(a) require such educational establishments as may be prescribed to supply, in such manner and at such time as may be prescribed, to every person undertaking or about to undertake a full time course of education provided by the establishment a certificate containing such particulars as may be prescribed;

(b) require such educational establishments as may be prescribed to supply to the registration officer within such period (being not less than 21 days) as may be prescribed such information as the registration officer may reasonably require for the purposes of the exercise of his functions under this Act, being information which is in the possession or control of the establishment."

( ) In subsection (6) after the word "of" where it first occurs there shall be inserted the words ""educational establishment"".").

§
The noble Lord said: In common with several of the other government amendments to Schedule 15, this amendment is essentially concerned with the compilation and maintenance of the community charges register. Student status for community
459
charge purposes confers on the student a reduced liability for the personal community charge. It is important that registration officers are able to satisfy themselves that those who are listed as students on canvass forms do indeed fall within the prescribed definition. We consulted interested bodies in February about the provisions which might be needed in this area. In the light of that consultation, we have brought forward this amendment which empowers the Secretary of State to make regulations requiring educational establishments to issue students with certificates confirming their student status.

§
The amendment also empowers the Secretary of State to make regulations requiring educational establishments to provide registration officers with the names of people undertaking full-time courses of education at the establishment, together with such other information as is relevant to the registration of that person for personal community charge liability only. We shall of course consult interested bodies further before making the necessary regulations soon after the passage of the Bill. The amendment will make provision for Scotland similar to that which is already made for England and Wales in Clause 127 and paragraph 9 of Schedule 2 to the Bill. I commend the amendment to the Committee and beg to move.

The Government are very strange at times—perhaps "at times" is the wrong expression. We discussed the English provision contained in paragraph 9 of Schedule 2 to the Bill on 7th June at col. 1295 of the Official Report as regards Amendment No. 83A. It was explained very carefully on behalf of the Government by the noble Lord, Lord Hesketh—he will remember it well—that all that is required is that the education authority shall give to the registration officer the names and addresses of students at the start of the academic year. It was agreed on all sides, and notably by the noble Lord, Lord Hesketh, that it was unrealistic to ask for anything else.

It is clear that paragraph 9 of Schedule 2 does not contain any mention of a certificate. Therefore, to say that that follows the English provision seems to me to be incorrect. Paragraph 9 of Schedule 2 on page 86 says:
Regulations … may include a provision that a certification officer"—
who is someone in an educational establishment—
shall supply to a registration officer for a charging authority such information as is mentioned in sub-paragraph (2)".
Sub-paragraph 2 says:
The information is—

(a) the name of each person who (on the day the request is made) is undertaking a full-time course of education and has his sole or main residence in the area of the charging authority, and

(b) the address of the sole or main residence of each such person".

The noble Lord, Lord Hesketh, made it quite clear that the university (to use that shorthand for the various bodies which may be involved) was not under any obligation to certify that the addresses were correct. The noble Baroness, Lady Seear, gave us a florid recollection of the speed at which students
460
move from one address to another. I shall not attempt to repeat that.

However, the provision contains nothing about certificates. If certificates are to be issued—that has an unfortunately correlation with carrying an identity card around saying that one is a full-time student—why should they be necessary in Scotland for Scottish students and not in England and Wales? Where have those certificates come from? Where are they provided for in England? What value is such a certificate to have? If on 6th October in any given year the University of Glasgow, Edinburgh, Aberdeen or St. Andrews issues a certificate which may be shown to various officers saying that John Smith or Hugh Morton is a student and he then ceases to be a full-time student because he does not attend classes or takes up another obligation, who is going to withdraw the certificate? The certificate based on that information seems to be totally valueless and possibly confusing. As far as I can see it is not something that will apply in England. If we are all to carry identity cards, so be it, but let us have it in general legislation and not introduced for a certain sub-class in Scotland.

On the face of the Bill and this amendment certification is complete nonsense. Therefore I wonder whether the Minister can clarify this point.

Perhaps it escaped the notice of the noble Lord, Lord Morton of Shuna, but if he turns to page 16 of the Bill he will see under Clause 27(2)(b) that:
a certification officer shall at a prescribed time supply to a person who is pursuing or who is about to pursue a course at the establishment, and who is of a prescribed description, a certificate in a prescribed form and containing prescribed particulars".
I stand by what I said.

It is nonsense to suggest that the issue to students of certificates confirming their student status is akin to the introduction of a system of identity cards. I hope that we can see this proposal in its proper context. Student status will entitle the student to a very considerable reduction on what his community charge liability would otherwise have been. It is only right therefore that a clear system of checking entitlement to that reduction should be set up. The issue of certificates will therefore be helpful both to registration officers in their task of compiling and updating the community charges register and to students in demonstrating that they qualify for the 80 per cent. reduction in community charge liability.

Such certificates will simply provide evidence of the holder's status as a student. They will have no value or significance in any other context, and will be used only for the single and clearly defined purpose of giving evidence of a person's student status. They will not therefore be identity cards any more, for instance, than are matriculation cards or student railcards.

In the hope of saving the Committee time by avoiding an unncessary speech perhaps I may ask the Minister whether it is his understanding of this clause that universities are required to certify students' addresses.

I do not know whether the position is the same from the point of view of the noble Lord, Lord Hesketh, as it is from that of the Minister, but it is reported in cols. 1296–97 of Hansard of 7th June 1988 that the noble Lord, Lord Hesketh, said that it was only the address which the university had that had to be provided to the registration officer and that there was no guarantee of accuracy at that point.

I accept that Clause 27 relates to the certificate. I continue to question the value of the certificate and whether it has any more value than the student railcard or anything else. If there is to be any checking it will necessitate that the registration officer goes to the university to see that the student is still there. That must be necessary.

We shall have a whole host of people wandering round the country with certification that they are a student. There are certain people in both England and Scotland, and probably in Wales too, who are quite adept at copying things. It may well be that those certificates will be more of a nuisance than they are worth.

The Minister did not reply at all to my major criticism that the certificate seemed to be a practically worthless piece of documentation. Why should the university issue a certificate—presumably in October at the beginning of the academic year—when a certain number of people will drop out and will still have certificates? There is no obligation on anybody to say that they have lost their status.

(a) after the word "shall" there shall be inserted ", notwithstanding that they are not otherwise liable under this Act for a personal community charge,"; and

(b) for the word "each" where it second occurs there shall be substituted the word "either".").

§
The noble Lord said: This group of amendments all relate either to liability for the community charge or to the compilation and up-dating of the community charges register. They are also all of an essentially minor and technical nature. While I am of course happy to explain the details of the changes which they make, I propose to concentrate my comments on one of the amendments which arguably makes a change of substance—namely, Amendment No. 194ZV.

§
Section 15 of the 1987 Act currently provides that where an entry in the register is amended, the registration officer should make a record of the entry before amendment and retain it for two years, and that that record may he inspected in the same way as the register may be inspected under Section 20 of the Act.

§
Amendment No. 194V makes three minor changes to the provisions of Section 15. First, it ensures that
462
a note of the date on which the record is made forms part of the record. Secondly, it provides that the provisions of Section 20 of the 1987 Act relating to inspection of the register, including any provisions prescribed under that section, apply, subject to such modifications as may be prescribed, to inspection of the record as they apply to inspection of the register. The power to prescribe modifications will give the Secretary of State the flexibility to provide that the publicly available parts of the record should be less widely available for inspection than the publicly available parts of the register if this appears to be appropriate for operational reasons.

§
Thirdly, the amendment provides that persons shall be entitled to obtain copies or certified copies of entries in the record in the same way that they can obtain copies of entries in the register. Like the right to obtain copies of entries in the register, however, this right will be restricted to copies of entries which the person in question is entitled to inspect. With those comments I commend this amendment to the Committee. I beg to move.

I am using these amendments as a vehicle in order to ask the Minister a question. Why is it necessary to retain the requirement that the Scottish register and therefore the Scottish "responsible person" needs to provide the dates of birth of everybody for whom that person is answering? I can imagine circumstances in which inquiring after the date of birth of one's mother-in-law might prove difficult. There is no such provision in the English Bill. Why does Scotland need to have dates of birth bandied about on registers and in the forms that need to be filled in?

I feel sure that the noble Lord, Lord Morton, was in his place last Tuesday when I answered a Question that had a bearing on this subject. We remain of the view that this provision will make things easier for the registration officers, whose job is not an easy one, as I am sure the noble Lord understands. During the discussion on Tuesday my noble friend Lord Campbell of Croy spoke of the Macleans and Mackenzies and Mackays, and of how difficult it would be to distinguish who was who in any particular family, village or community.

We still feel that there is a necessity for identification purposes to insert that provision. It will be especially important when one reaches the stage at which people are moving from one place to another, within and without a community. I know that the noble Lord is taking this opportunity to raise the matter and I am surprised that he has not raised it before. I know that he holds very strong views on the subject, which was debated at great length when the Scottish Bill came before this Chamber. However, I have to say that the Government have not changed their mind so far as concerns Scotland. I shall be very interested to observe the implementation of the Act when it is on the statute book as regards England and Wales.

The Government must have discussed this matter with great seriousness at
463
some stage. Can the noble Lord explain why there should be more John Mackays living in the same house in Scotland than there will be John Smiths or John Bulls in the same house in England? There seems to be no logic in the argument.

In general, people who live in the same house tend to be related to each other. Basically they are fathers, sons and grandsons and mothers, daughters and grandaughters, all of whom have the same name. If in England there is no confusion with the names of John or Jenny Smith so that either may be a grandchild or a granny, why does that same situation cause great confusion in Scotland, Wales or anywhere else? There is no satisfactory answer to that question, yet the Government must have considered it very seriously because there was so much fuss made about it last year.

Perhaps I may be permitted to come back on the English and Welsh situation. It has been acknowledged that information about dates of birth could be collected at the discretion of registration officers in certain circumstances where it would aid in the identification of individuals—for example, where several people of the same name had been arrested at the same address. I imagine that this information will be of particular importance in Wales because of the number of Williamses and Edwardses who happen to live in the various close communities.

We could prolong this discussion. I know the noble Lord's views and so far as concerns the Scottish Bill they do not coincide with those of the Government. As I have said, I look forward with interest to see how the implementation of the legislation in England and Wales reflects in this area.

§
Page 143, line 14, at end insert—
("(1A) In subsection (4) for the words from ("and that liability") to the end there shall be substituted the words ("and where at any time two or more people are liable to pay the standard community charge under this subsection they shall be jointly and severally liable to pay the charge.".").

§
Page 143, line 47, at end insert—
("(6) After the said subsection (10) there shall be inserted the following subsection—(10A) Where at any time premises are let, sub-let or permitted to be occupied as mentioned in subsection (10) above to more than one person, only one standard community charge contribution in respect of the standard community charge payable in respect of any financial year shall be recovered in respect of the period of such lease, sub-lease or permission to occupy and such persons shall be jointly and severally liable to pay the contribution.".").

§
The noble Lord said: I have spoken to these amendments with Amendment No. 194ZP. I beg to move.

§
Page 143, line 49, at end insert—
464("1A) In subsection (3) at the beginning there shall be inserted the words "Subject to subsection (3A) below,".(1B) After subsection 3 there shall be inserted the following subsection—(3A) The registration officer shall not designate premises which are or form part of land designated by the Secretary of State under paragraph 10 of Schedule 1A to this Act.".").

§
The noble Lord said: I spoke to Amendment No. 194ZS on Tuesday in connection with Amendment No. 184D. I beg to move.

§
Page 143, line 49, at end insert—
("( ) In subsection (5) for the words from ("and that liability") to the end there shall be substituted the words ("and where at any time two or more people are liable to pay the collective community charge under this subsection they shall be jointly and severally liable to pay the charge.".".).

§
The noble Lord said: I spoke to this amendment in connection with Amendment No. 194ZP. I beg to move.

(a) after the word "entry" where it second occurs there shall be inserted the words "including a note of the date upon which the record is made": and

(b) for the words "the date on which it was made" there shall be substituted the words "that date".

(1B) For subsection (4) there shall be substituted the following subsection—(4) The provisions of section 20 of this Act relating to the inspection of the register and the obtaining of copies of entries in the register (including such provisions as are prescribed under that section) shall apply, subject to such modifications as may be prescribed, to the inspection or obtaining of copies of a record made under subsection (3) above as they apply to the inspection of or obtaining copies of entries in the register.".").

§
Page 145, line 44, at end insert—
(". In section 17 of that Act (duties in relation to registration) in subsection (6) after the words ""responsible person"" there shall be inserted the words "in relation to any premises".").

§
(4) A person detained for default in complying with his sentence shall not be treated as detained in pursuance of the sentence (whether or not the sentence provided for detention in the event of default).

§
2.—(1) A person is exempt if he has a relevant association with a visiting force.

§
(2) A visiting force, in relation to any particular time, is any body, contingent or detachment of the forces of a country to which any provision in Part I of the Visiting Forces Act 1952 applies at that time.

§
(3) A person has, at any particular time, a relevant association with a visiting force if he has at that time such an association within the meaning of that Part.

where the sole or main function of the establishment or accommodation is to provide personal care or support, combined with board, to persons who are solely or mainly resident in the establishment or accommodation.

(b) any premises in respect of which an exemption has been granted under section 6 or 7 of that Act.

§
(4) A hostel is an establishment in which residential accommodation is provided and which is—

(a) managed by a housing association registered for the time being in a register maintained under section 3 of the Housing Associations Act 1985; or

(b) operated other than on a commercial basis and in respect of which funds are provided wholly or in part by a Government department or agency or a local authority; or

(c) managed by a voluntary organisation,

where the sole or main function of the establishment is to provide personal care or support, combined with board, to persons who are solely or mainly resident in the establishment.

§
(5) The Secretary of State may by regulations made under this paragraph substitute another definition for any definition of a residential care home, nursing home or hostel for the time being effective for the purpose of this paragraph.

§
(6) In this paragraph—
personal care" includes the provision of appropriate help with physical and social needs; andsupport" means counselling or other help provided as part of a planned programme of care.

§
(2) The Secretary of State may designate land under this paragraph if at the time of designation the first and second conditions are fulfilled.

§
(3) The first condition is that it is land in which there is any interest belonging to Her Majesty in right of the Crown or to a Government department or to a Minister of the Crown or held on behalf of Her Majesty for the purposes of a Government department.

§
(4) The second condition is that in the Secretary of State's opinion the land is used wholly or mainly as the sole or main residence of individuals and in his opinion most or all of them—

(a) reside there for short periods; or

(b) should in the interests of national security not be registered as subject to a personal community charge.

§
(6) A designation under this paragraph shall take effect at the beginning of the day following that on which it was made, and shall cease to have effect at the end of the day (if any) on which it is revoked.

(i) after the words "amount due" there shall be inserted the words "in respect of any community charge (including any amount due in respect of the corresponding community water charge)"; and

(ii) for the words "rebate under or by virtue of section 24 of this Act from that amount or instalment" there shall be substituted the words "reduction in that amount or instalment in consequence of any rebate or community charge benefit in pursuance of Part II of the Social Security Act 1986; and").

§
The noble Lord said: I spoke to this amendment in conjunction with Amendment No. 194ZG. I beg to move.

§
4A.—(1) Where a person enters into an agreement with a levying authority under sub-paragraph (10) of paragraph 4
468
above for payment of a community charge and the levying authority are satisfied that it would be of greater financial benefit to them if the payment were made under such an agreement than if it were made in accordance with sub-paragraphs (1) to (9) of that paragraph they may reduce the amount which the person is liable to pay by not more than such limit as is prescribed.

§
(2) The limit mentioned in sub-paragraph (1) above may be calculated by reference to such percentage as the Secretary of State may prescribe.

§
4B.—(1) Subject to sub-paragraph (2) below, a levying authority may, for the purpose of encouraging persons to enter into agreements under paragraph 4(10) above and without prejudice to the making of such reductions as are mentioned in paragraph 4A above, offer inducements of a financial or other nature (including inducements in the form of chances in a local lottery within the meaning of section 6(1) of the Lotteries and Amusements Act 1976).

§
(2) In any financial year the aggregate cost of any inducements offered under sub-paragraph (1) above taken with the cost of any reductions made under paragraph 4A shall not exceed the savings which the levying authority estimates will accrue from agreements made by them under paragraph 4(10) above,".").

§
The noble Lord said: I spoke to this amendment in connection with Amendment No. 194ZG. I beg to move.

§
[Amendment No. 194ZZZ, as an amendment to Amendment No. 194ZZ, not moved.]

("(a) at the end of sub-paragraph (1) there shall be added the words "or of any of the authority's responsibilities as regards rebates or community charge benefit in pursuance of Part II of the Social Security Act 1986"; and

(b) ").

§
The noble Lord said: I spoke to this amendment together with Amendments Nos. 194ZZB, 194ZZC, 194ZZD, 194ZZE, 194ZZF and 194ZZG when discussing Amendment No. 194ZG. I beg to move.

§
Page 148, line 25, leave out ("and") and insert—
("(aa) in sub-paragraph (4) after the words "community charge" there shall be inserted the words "and community water charge"; and").

§
Page 148, line 28, at end insert—
("( ) In paragraph 7 (recovery of arrears of community charges)—

(a) in sub-paragraph (1) for the words "(4) to (6)" there shall be substituted the words "(5) and (6)";

(b) in sub-paragraph (2)(a) after the word "application" where it first occurs there shall be inserted the words—

"(i) have each been issued with a demand notice and that in each case the time limit for appealing against a demand notice under paragraph 3 above has expired without an appeal being made or that in a case where an appeal has been made it has been finally determined in favour of the levying authority; and

§
10. The Secretary of State may prescribe that, in carrying out their functions under this Act, a levying authority, or a housing body exercising functions under paragraph 5 above, may use information which—

(a) is obtained under any other enactment; and

(b) does not fall within any prescribed description of information which cannot be used.".").

Having contained myself in silence since half past six I hope that I may be allowed to say a few words about the situation produced by Schedule 15. There is a page or so of amendments dealing with English law but eight pages of amendments relating to Scotland. Now, at Committee stage, we are given 13 more pages which are almost all government amendments in addition to those originally on the Marshalled List.

The Abolition of Domestic Rates Etc. (Scotland) Act was dealt with in the last Parliament. It has been known for a long time that legislation would be brought forward for England and Wales, and I am glad of that. However, I believe that we are entitled to an explanation as to why we have an almost unprecedented situation. There are 20 pages of amendments to Scottish law, many of which are very complex. I have admired the manner in which my noble friend Lord Sanderson has grappled with the remarkable list of amendments and also the way in which the noble Lord, Lord Morton of Shuna, has applied his mind as a Scottish lawyer to try to discover what is involved. It is a great burden upon the Committee and I believe that a brief explanation is required. It is no use Members trying to find it in the explanatory memorandum to this complicated Bill. That is silent on the matter.

Of course my noble friend is right. No one could be more concerned about bringing forward so many amendments to the Bill at this stage. I shall give him two reasons which I gave on Tuesday when we started on this particular course. One reason welcomed on all sides of the Committee—I recall that the noble Lord, Lord Morton of Shuna, was particularly pleased—is that the schedule puts together all the various exemptions so that we can see where we stand. That was required, and we felt it important to bring forward proposals at this stage, particularly in view of the situation of my noble friend Lord Caithness at tile moment in relation to exemptions and what may yet be decided by the Government.

The second point is that I remember, on becoming Minister and answering a question on the subject of this particular Bill as it affects England and Wales, I gave a clear undertaking that if measures were adopted in England and Wales which we would have
470
to replicate in Scotland, it would be done at the earliest opportunity.

I am obliged to the noble Lord, Lord Renton, for his complimentary remarks about myself. I was not certain whether I was swimming about at the bottom of a pool or really understanding what was happening in respect of this schedule. It is an example of the appalling nature of legislation that is going through at the moment. Anyone buying a copy of the Abolition of Domestic Rates Etc. (Scotland) Act will, if this Bill is passed, have an Act that is wrong.

If someone buys a copy of the Abolition of Domestic Rates Etc. (Scotland) Act, which was only published last May or June, they will buy an Act which, when this Bill goes through, will be wrong. A whole number of other Scottish Acts will also now be wrong. It is incredibly difficult for anyone not advised and kept up to date by civil servants to know what is the law. These incessant schedules make it very difficult for anyone to understand. It is difficult enough for a lawyer who is supposed to be supplied with details very quickly; it is quite impossible for any layman to try and understand what is the law. That is a very serious problem which the Government have done a lot to make worse.

I am also very glad that the noble Lord, Lord Renton, said what he did. The noble Lord, Lord Sanderson of Bowden, replied to the point with dignity and care. However, this is not the first time that it has happened. We have had before us two large Bills which have grown very remarkably in the telling—and I mean that in the most literal sense of the word. The practice of adding to Acts is one that has increased, is increasing and should be diminished.

This is really a Scottish lawyer asking for an explanation. Why does it make it simpler to take out those words? What is, "A simple contract debt" in English law and what does it mean? Why is the Bill simpler if those words are omitted?

§
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 194B, for the convenience of the Committee I shall also speak to Amendment No. 194C. These amendments give the Treasury the same flexibility as is open to the Secretary of State in respect of subordinate legislation. Amendment No. 194B gives the Treasury power to make different provisions for England and Wales and Amendment No. 194C gives the Treasury power to make such supplementary, incidental, consequential or transitional provisions as appear to be necessary or expedient.

§
In practice these will apply only to the power in paragraph 5(3) of Schedule 7 to uprate the NNDR multiplier by less than the RPI, which is the sole power exercisable by the Treasury. It is sensible for this power to be consistent with the order-making powers open to the Secretary of State. I beg to move.

§
The noble Lord said: The purpose of this amendment is to bring into the scope of affirmative resolution not only Schedule 6 to the Bill but also Clause 122. That clause is a peculiarly opaque part of the Bill. It appears to say that whenever there is a reference to rating in any Act the Secretary of State may by order vary the reference to rating to a reference to something else. I believe I summarise it too simply but I do not believe it is anything less wide than that.

§
The problem with Clause 122 is precisely that it is the most extreme extension of regulation-making powers of secondary legislation that one can see anywhere even in this Bill, which is conspicuous for its reliance on secondary legislation. We let it go through when we were dealing with the regulation itself in anticipation that the way to handle it would be to restrict the willingness of the Secretary of State to use the very wide powers which he has under Clause 122 by saying that he has to ask for an affirmative resolution. If anybody thinks that this might clog up Parliament, I would suggest that the Secretary of State should do so at regular and frequent intervals by bringing in all of the amendments that he wishes to be made to Clause 122 in an indigestible lump. In that way he might succeed in deceiving and bypassing the Opposition, not all of whom are as conscientious as my noble friend Lord Morton of Shuna. I think that on examination it will be found that the powers given under Clause 122 are very wide and that it is desirable, if not that they
472
should be subject to the affirmative resolution, that there should be some better indication of what they mean—I am not asking for a long speech—and why it is that they are justified. I beg to move.

Clause 122 is necessary because various elements of the present general rating system are used for a wide variety of purposes unconnected with rating. Statutory provisions are found in both public and private legislation. The abolition of domestic rates means that the majority of these provisions will need to be changed. In some cases the amendment will be relatively simple, substituting reference to some other relevant factor—for example, market value—for reference to rateable value. In other cases a more extensive recasting of the existing provisions will be needed.

Clause 122 is concerned with those cases where rateable value is used as a reference point in other legislation. Examples include the ceilings for Rent Act protection and the right to enfranchise under the Leasehold Reform Acts; home loss payments where property is compulsorily purchased for development; and the valuation of rent free accommodation for income tax purposes.

Clause 122 is in effect a fall-back power which will enable essential changes to be made to non-rating legislation where this would cease to work once one could no longer rely on the assumption that every property will have a rateable value. The power to prescribe necessary changes has, on the one hand, to be broad enough to cover all the rating factors employed and the variety of their uses, but on the other to provide sufficient safeguards so that the policy intention of the legislation cannot be radically altered.

With this background in mind, I now turn to Amendment No. 195 of the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh. The effect of this amendment would be to impose the affirmative resolution procedure on all orders under Clause 122. It is our view that the negative resolution procedure provides a perfectly adequate level of parliamentary control. It is a procedure which applies to the vast majority of statutory instruments under all legislation and which will apply to the great majority of those which will be laid under the powers in this Bill.

There are at present only two powers which require the affirmative resolution procedure, that in paragraph 3 of Schedule 6 which provides for the determination of rateable values for the public utilities by formula rather than by conventional methods, and the power to under-index the NNDR contained in paragraph 5 of Schedule 7. We have also given a commitment that the powers in Clause 49 and the new clause following it, which provide for the non-domestic transitional arrangements, will also be subject to that procedure, and we shall be tabling an appropriate amendment at Report stage.

It is entirely appropriate that these instruments, which will materially affect the level of rates paid on non-domestic hereditaments, or classes of hereditament, should be debated both in the House and in another place. But I can see no reason why the power in Clause 122, which is of course limited to enabling the Secretary of State to make necessary consequential adjustments to preserve the effect of
473
existing legislation, should be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure. We have already consulted the appropriate organisations on our proposals for adjusting provisions in housing and landlord and tenant legislation which refer to rates and rateable values, and there will be consultation in other cases too.

Apart from the few major areas where substantial amendments will be required, there will be a large number of minor and local amendments. It would in the Government's view be unjustified to subject each of these to the affirmative resolution procedure. Where a particular set of regulations raises issues of wider concern, it will of course be open to any noble Lord to table a prayer against them and so give us an opportunity to debate the issues.

I always knew that this Bill was a foolish and reckless venture and this clause proves it. I am only given pause for thought by the fact that the next Labour Government will have to repeal it and replace it by a more just system of local government finance. I imagine that we will suffer the same difficulties in implementation that the Government are finding now. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

§
Page 77, line 15, at end insert—
("(8) An order under paragraph 3 of Schedule 6 below shall, if apart from the provisions of this subsection it would be treated for the purposes of the standing orders of either House of Parliament as a hybrid instrument, proceed in that House as if it were not such an instrument.").

§
The noble Lord said: This is a fairly technical but not uninteresting amendment. It relates to orders made under paragraph 3 of Schedule 6 to the Bill, a provision which has I think not so far figured in the Committee's deliberations. That paragraph is concerned with what is commonly known as formula rating. This is a method of rating applying mainly to statutory undertakers, especially those with national networks such as the railways and the electricity industry.

§
It has long been recognised that individual signal-boxes or sub-stations cannot be valued by conventional means since no one would rent them in isolation. Some formula therefore has to be arrived at—in conclusion with the industries concerned and the local authority associations—for putting a value on the network as a whole so that the industries concerned can pay their fair share towards local authority revenue. This process has to be carried out afresh for each revaluation, and consultations on the new formulae to operate from 1990 are already well advanced.

§
In the past, however, it has been thought fit to enshrine not only the principles of these formulae but the detailed methodology and in some cases the resulting values in primary legislation. Nearly a quarter of the General Rate Act is taken up with these provisions, although only one man in the Department of the Environment and a few dozen in the outside world ever need to read them. Their presence in the General Rate Act serves little purpose except to add weight and cost.

§
In this Bill, we have therefore provided for effect to be given to all these formulae in regulations under Schedule 6, paragraph 3. This simplifies the Bill itself and will greatly simplify the process of keeping the formula values up to date. Arguably, however, the power is a rather broad one, which would enable my right honourable friend the Secretary of State simply to determine the rate bills for these industries—many of which are now in the private sector—by whatever means he felt most appropriate. In practice, we intend to adopt a coherent approach to all the industries concerned and to consult very thoroughly. But it seemed right nevertheless that the exercise of such potentially wide-ranging power merited the fuller parliamentary scrutiny given by the affirmative resolution procedure.

§
There is just one catch to this. Whereas there are no rules as to hybridity relating to the parliamentary handling of negative instruments, once an instrument becomes affirmative it also, if it makes different provision for different individuals or bodies, then becomes hybrid and subject to the special procedure (under Private Bill Standing Orders 216 and 216A) involving reference to the Hybrid Instruments Committee and then to a Select Committee and the hearing of petitions from those concerned.

§
There is no doubt that orders under Schedule 3, paragraph 3, will treat different bodies differently in a technical sense. There will be one rateable value for British Rail, another for British Gas, and so forth. But they will do so in accordance with a consistent set of principles. Moreover, there will already have been very thorough consultation with the industries concerned. It therefore seems to us that this is a case where the full panoply of the hybrid instruments procedure is not justified, and Amendment 195A therefore specifies that it shall not apply.

§
Perhaps to pre-empt noble Lord's questions, I should say that such a provision is far from being unprecedented. A quick glance at Erskine May offers as precedents Section 1 of the Manoeuvres Act 1958, paragraph 1 of Schedule 3 to the Local Government Act 1972, Section 3(11) of the Water Act 1973 and Section 3(7) of the Independent Broadcasting Authority Act 1974. The second of those measures concerned the determination of the boundaries of the new local government areas, a matter of far more public controversy than formula rating. So, although it is undoubtedly a little unusual for a government Bill to seek to circumscribe the operation of the Standing Orders of the Chamber, I trust that the Committee will accept that it is done with the best of motives. Noble Lords will have ample scope to consider these instruments when they come before them for affirmative resolution as required by Clause 141(6). I beg to move.

I view this with a certain amount of misgiving. Private Bill Committee Standing Orders are an important constituent of liberty. They restrain the bringing of the full statutory juggernaut to bear on a particular private individual, which I think is necessary.

I understand why the proposal is put before us on this occasion. I think that I follow the reasoning behind it. It causes me more misgiving rather than
475
less, however, that the Minister says that he can find a considerable number of precedents. Can the Minister give me an assurance that he does not mean to make a habit of this?

I had some doubt about the amendment when I first read it. However, having heard my noble friend's explanation, I feel that it is justified. Indeed, it is justified for a reason beyond that which he gave. The question of whether there is a case for hybridity is unfortunately very uncertain and sometimes has had to be referred to the authorities of this House or—less often—of another place. It may be to the advantage of people who think that their interests are affected to know that they should not waste their time and money trying to go for hybridity. We should not lightly deprive people of the right to appear before a Select Committee of either House and to adduce evidence when their legitimate interests are at stake. We should do so only for good reason. I believe that on this occasion sound reasons have been given.

Perhaps I may put at rest the mind of the noble Earl, Lord Russell. I assure him that we shall not make a habit of it. I take this opportunity to thank my noble friend Lord Renton for providing an additional reason why this is a good amendment.

§
Page 77, line 33, at end insert—
("(2A) A waste disposal authority is an authority established at any time by an order under section 10(1) of the Local Government Act 1985.(2B) A combined police authority is a combined police authority established at any time by an amalgamation scheme under the Police Act 1964.(2C) A combined fire authority is a fire authority constituted at any time by a combination scheme under the Fire Services Act 1947.").

§
The noble Lord said: The amendment has already been spoken to. I beg to move.

§
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 197, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 198 to 202. The purpose of Amendment No. 197 is to delay the operation of the Bill by one year and to extend the transitional period by agreement between the Secretary of State and the local authority associations. In a period of less than two years, the local authorities will need not only to be in place but to have working successfully much local government bureaucracy and machinery. They will need computer hardware and software, which must be
476
purchased. New staff will have to be recruited and trained and new office accommodation will be needed.

§
This is against the background of the manner in which over many years the Government have frustrated the ability of local government to incur capital expenditure. We know that the Government have made available to local authorities £25 million for the transitional period. Is the Minister satisfied that that sum is sufficient adequately to meet the needs of local government in gearing up for the transitional period? We do not think that it is. Has any provision been made in the Government's expenditure plans for local authorities in 1988 and 1989 to cover revenue expenditure directly related to the transitional period?

§
Two matters are covered by transitional arrangements. First, there are the grant safety nets which will cushion the impact of the introduction of the poll tax on domestic taxpayers; and secondly, in inner London domestic rates and the poll tax will run together. The Minister is well aware that we take a dim view of that additional vindictive and petty burden placed on the inner London authorities. We want the transitional period to be delayed by one year. That would be welcome in local government. We wonder what reasons the Government may have for not allowing this to be delayed by one year. I beg to move.

The Government gave a firm commitment before the last general election that the community charge would be introduced in England and Wales on 1st April 1990. Nothing that the noble Lord, Lord Graham, has said has given me any reason to believe that it would be right to go back on that commitment.

Did the noble Lord say that the Government gave a firm commitment before the election that the community charge would be in place by 1990? I should very much like to have the reference for that, because the Government did not make up their minds on the poll tax as the alternative to domestic rates until after the election.

We gave a commitment. In the process of formulating that commitment we decided on a date. The noble Lord may not like it but I hope to be able to give the reasons why we believe we are right to carry on with that date.

Local authorities and central government will have a period of nearly two years to continue planning for the implementation of the new system, building on the valuable preliminary work that has already been undertaken. I have every reason to believe that we shall be more than ready for the sending out of the first community charge bills in the spring of 1990.

I should also remind the Committee that the community charge system will come into effect in Scotland on 1st April 1989. How could we justify deferring the introduction in England and Wales until 1991 when north of the Border the change will occur as planned in 1989? I do not believe we can justify such a proposal. I must therefore ask the Committee to reject Amendments Nos. 197, 198, 199 and 202 if should they be pressed by the noble Lord.
477
If accepted, they would result in the Government reneging on an election commitment, letting down the Scots and denying the people of England and Wales the benefits of a fairer, more accountable system of local government finance. That would be quite unacceptable.

Amendments Nos. 200 and 201 would empower the Secretary of State to extend the period during which residual domestic rating applies and the transitional grant safety net is applied under Part VI of the Bill. In view of the support given on Monday by the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, to the removal of Part IV of the Bill, I am surprised to find the Labour Party supporting an amendment which would extend the period of dual running.

The amendments would produce unacceptable uncertainty for all authorities. As I have said, the safety net grant will be settled before 1st April 1990. It will set out the safety net adjustments for all authorities for each of the transitional years. It will mean that everyone is absolutley certain, right from the beginning of the new system, what the effect of the safety net will be and when it will disappear. The same applies to residual rates. Once the multiplier has been fixed, everyone will know that it will taper to nothing over four years. If we were able to decide, in say 1992, to change our minds and lengthen the transitional period, we should be introducing a new source of instability and confusion. That would be quite wrong.

The Government have already given a great deal of thought to the question of the length of the transitional period. Members of the Committee may recall that the 1986 Green Paper proposed that domestic rates should be phased out over a period of up to 10 years in England and six in Wales and that the safety net could last indefinitely. We listened to the views expressed about those proposals, which were that such a transition period was too long and, for the safety net, not specific enough. We responded by proposing a fixed four-year period for the transition in respect of both rates and the safety net, where applicable.

As regards costs, we are committing £25 million for 1988–89 and we will be announcing shortly what will be available for next year. The commitment to introduce the community charge was in the election manifesto and followed the 1986 Green Paper, which proposed a starting date of 1990. We have made it clear on every occasion since 1986 that 1990 was the target date. We believe that this represents a fair balance between the need for reform and the need to give individuals time to adjust.

Before my noble friend sits down, I wonder whether he would consider another aspect which bears on the proposal to delay the introduction of the charge for a year. I think it was on Tuesday that the noble Lord, Lord Morton of Shuna, pointed out that over the year between 1989–90 there would be a net emigration of nurses from Scotland to England. It must be said, of course, that many of us in England would be grateful should this happen, because it would solve the English nursing problem. However, although the further delay of a year would mean another year in which this problem might be
478
helped in England—the way you look at this problem will depend on whether you are English or Scottish—it would certainly cause a severe complication from Scotland's point of view.

I am sure that my noble friend was right to resist the amendments. Indeed, he has given very strong reasons for so doing. However, before we leave the matter I wonder whether I may draw the attention of all Members of the Committee to Clause 143(2). If ever there was an example of meaningless repetition it is in that subsection.

My heart bleeds for the problems which the Government have created by dealing separately with Scotland. The Minister has pointed out that he intensely dislikes the inequity between the treatment of Scotland and England; and yet it was the Government themselves who decided to treat Scotland separately, and earlier than England. They cannot have it both ways. The amendments seek to respond to the words that we have received from the local authority associations.

I acknowledge and accept what the Government have said about firm commitments. However, nothing is written in tablets of stone. If in fact they are saying that they never change anything and that they always carry out every dot and comma of the election manifesto, then you could have fooled me. I think what they are really saying is that this is a piece of the manifesto which they intend to carry out because they have a mandate for it. Nevertheless, there are many times when they do not have a mandate but they somehow manage to justify what they do. Moreover, there are many times when they change the mandate in the light of circumstances.

Therefore what the Minister is saying in effect is, "This is what we said a year ago and no matter what the circumstances are or what pleas are made, we intend to get on with it". As I have sought to point out, the Minister has told us—confirming what I told the Committee—that an allocation of moneys to get ready for the change has been made. However, he has not been able to tell us how much they will allocate for the year. He used the word "shortly". Of course I acknowledge that there are times when such information is not available to him. Nevertheless, local government is very worried indeed about its inability to keep to the Government's timetable. I appreciate the care with which the Minister has sought to justify his inability and unwillingness to accede to the request of local government. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

§
Page 78, line 17, at end insert—
("(5A) In this Act "population" including "relevant population", "aggregate of relevant populations", population falling "within such description as is specified in Regulations", or however described so long as the context allows, shall be the Registrar General's estimate as certified by the Secretary of State for the purposes of this Act and other relevant enactments, orders, or regulations.479(5B) The Secretary of State shall inform all local authorities, the local authority associations, and such other persons and bodies as he considers appropriate of all estimates of population made by the Registrar General under subsection (5A) above.(5C) The parties listed in subsection (5B) above may make representations in writing to the Registrar General as to the accuracy of any estimate of population made under subsection (5A) above and the Registrar General shall respond in writing within one month.").

§
The noble Lord said: I beg to move the amendment standing in the name of my noble friend Lord McIntosh of Haringey. The purpose of the amendment is to require the Secretary of State to use the Registrar General's estimate of population where a measure of population is specified under the provisions of the Bill and to permit local authorities to make representations as to the accuracy of any estimates.

§
In Clause 76, a measure of population is referred to for apportioning precepts of precepting authorities over the appropriate charging authorities. In Schedule 8, paragraph 9, a measure of population is used to apportion the national non-domestic rate pool between charging authorities. The use of population as a measuring rod or a yardstick is established. We do not quibble with that concept.

§
The amendment seeks to provide an opportunity to challenge the estimate. I shall take the Minister through an example. In Westminster, on the 1987–88 figures there is a forecast poll tax of £396. The adult population is 150,000. Let us assume an evasion rate of 10 per cent. of the people on the register. That amounts to 15,000. The number on the poll tax register paying the poll tax will therefore be 135,000. The shortfall in the contribution from the NNDR pool will be £233 times £15,000, which is £3,495,000. That shortfall is equivalent to £26 per adult extra on the poll tax for those who pay. If the Minister can satisfy us that there will be opportunities or a method or process whereby the estimate can be looked at again, I shall be happy to withdraw the amendment. I beg to move.

However good the motives of the amendment may be—and they seem to be reasonable—we do not need it. There must he some limit to the extent to which we write into the Bill matters which take place in the normal course of administration. I should expect the Government to resist the amendment because it is unnecessary.

Perhaps I can help the Minister. If the Registrar General's figures appear to be punitive but there is a means whereby they can be adjusted, I would agree with the noble Lord. The amendment is moved so as to achieve equity and fairness. If the Minister can tell me that errors in estimates of population can be taken into account, there is no need for the amendment.

All that the noble Lord has described is something which one would expect to be done in the normal process of consultation between government departments, the Registrar General's department and the local authorities.

This amendment would permit any of those who receive notification of these estimates to make representations as to their accuracy and would require the Registrar General to respond within one month. But no specific provision is needed to empower an authority to write to the Registrar General and say, "Excuse me, I think there has been an error". Authorities are and will be free to do just that. I know that they raise problems with the Office of Population, Censuses and Surveys when they believe that their population has been wrongly assessed. This new provision is quite unecessary. I pass over the requirement for a response within one month. We all wish for a speedy resolution to problems and would like to see queries dealt with without delay. But in practice there are bound to be queries which cannot be handled within that time for a number of reasons.

To sum up, Amendment No. 203 is in part unnecessary and in the remainder unhelpful or misconceived. I do not think it will assist local authorities in any way and it will not assist the Government in reaching a view on the right basis for population. I invite the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.

Perhaps the Minister can help us. Will be tell us what measure of population the Government intend to use? We have sought to insert into the Bill the Registrar General's estimate of population. When I look at Clause 76, for instance, I am puzzled about what basis of population the Government intend to use. The noble Lord's honourable friend in another place, Mr. Ian Grist, said on 8th March that he understood that English authorities would be receiving consultation papers shortly. That is almost three months ago. The consultation paper on how to make progress on this matter has not been received. It is no good the Minister being bland about it and simply ignoring what repercussions this could have. It is possible for this to have a serious effect and I invite the Minster to help me.

Whenever the term "population" is used in this Bill it should mean the Registrar General's estimate as certified by the Secretary of State. The Registrar General's estimate is the one that we use at present for assessing the need to spend. The estimates of population in each area are the most soundly based consistent set of population data available. It may be that they will be the best figures to use in the new system also, but, as I said, no decisions have yet been taken.

The Minister makes an interesting point about what should happen and says that no decisions have yet been taken. I accept what he says about the absence of a decision. I accept too that it would be normal to assume that those data are the best, but "It ain't necessarily so". The Minister may look at some other measuring rod, and there may be valid reasons why these are not the best data. However, what the Minister has said on the record
481
will enable those outside the House to draw conclusions as to whether what is happening is helpful. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

§
Page 78, line 34, at end insert—
("(6) Any Order to be made by the Secretary of State under this section shall be made as soon as practicable after the coining into force of this act and in February of each succeeding year he shall list all the orders or regulations he intends to make in the following two financial years under the provisions of this Act and specify for each of them the following details—

(a) the estimated date the draft orders or regulations are to be published,

(b) a summary of the purpose of the orders or regulations.

(c) the persons or bodies to be consulted (generally to include the local authority associations),

(d) the estimated periods for consultation,

(e) the estimated period for the Secretary of State to consider responses to consultations,

(f) the estimated date for making the order or regulation,

(g) the latest date by which the order or regulation should be made to enable all local authorities a reasonable time to make the necessary preparations to discharge their functions rising from the order or regulations and this Act.

(7) If in the opinion of the Secretary of State any order or regulation shall not be made by the date specified in subsection (6)(g) above he shall forthwith make a further order amending the details contained in the original order under subsection (6) above and specify any necessary amendments to this Act as to dates and other prescriptions that are incidental thereto.").

§
The noble Lord said: I beg to move this amendment standing in the name of my noble friend Lord McIntosh. The purpose of the amendment is to invite the secretary of State formally to establish a timetable for the consideration of secondary legislation. The impact of secondary legislation can be very great indeed. Secondary legislation gives effect to the primary legislation and therefore there is much to be done. When this Bill reached the House of Lords it contained 58 clauses or schedules under which separate sets of regulations can be made covering 508—I repeat 508—separate matters for decision, in addition to 25 matters to be covered by orders. Further government amendments to the Bill have already been made in the Chamber. The amendment is pretty blunt. It states that it is essential that a timetable for secondary legislation is established and regularly updated.

§
I hope that the Minister will act as democratically and as equitably as possible and that consultations will take place before the secondary legislation is produced. I simply repeat what those at the sharp end of local government have told us. If the legislation is as wide and as deep as that, there will need to be a lot of consultation. Even the timetable that I am suggesting could very well be drawn up in consultation with local government. If the Minister can satisfy those outside the Chamber that they will at least have some opportunity to do what the law will require them to do, that will be a big help. I beg to move.

I do hope that my noble friend will not accept this amendment. It seems to me to be creating quite unnecessary bureaucratic effort. The reasons given for it by the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, would need—if one had time at this late hour of the night—to be analysed in order to test them. Many of the 500 or so matters the noble Lord mentions which are to be covered by regulations will come into one regulation. I do not know how many separate regulations there will be. I have already, by implication, complained that there will be too many. But let the Minister get on with the job; let him not waste time in unnecessary bureaucracy. I hope that my noble friend will advise the Committee not to accept the amendment.

I understand the concern that lies behind the amendment. I hope that I can put the minds of Members of the Committee at rest. We recognise that much of the burden of implementing this legislation will fall on local authorities and that much of the detail of the legislation will be set out in regulations. It is in no one's interest to spring any surpises and it is not our intention to do so.

In most cases the purpose and the extent of the regulations that are needed are well telegraphed on the face of the Bill. Two examples are Clause 47, which deals with the alterations to non-domestic rating lists, and Clause 103, which provides for regulations about funds. Where it is appropriate to do so we shall consult the relevant local authority associations about the regulations. In other cases we have already given specific undertakings to the Committee that local authorities will be consulted about the regulations we propose; for example, in the case of Clause 76, which deals with the definition of relevant population for the purpose of an authority's precept. But to impose a specific duty, as the amendment seeks to do, would be too onerous and might even be unhelpful.

The amendment might prevent, for example, an unforeseen need for regulations to be met or regulations to be made earlier than originally envisaged. Nor would the amendment, as drafted, enable draft regulations to be redrafted or withdrawn following representations from local government unless the date for them to be made was delayed, although I am sure that that was not the intention. I am very grateful to my noble friend Lord Renton for pointing out that the amendment would create a great deal more bureaucratic work. In the light of the assurances I have given that the purposes of the orders and regulations are already clear from the Bill, that we shall consult local authority associations on them where appropriate, and that we shall as far as possible indicate the likely timings of the regulations, I hope that the Committee will accept that the amendment is unnecessary.

In his very last words the Minister gave an assurance. Local authorities will have an indication of the likely timetable that will be worked through. That is all they want. They are not interfering with the manner in which the Government and their advisers seek to give effect to the Bill. What
483
they want is some idea, not of getting ready for it—they will get ready for it when the Bill receives Royal Assent and they know what is to befall them—but of how they can prepare themselves properly, allocate staff and so on.

When the record is read it will be seen that what the Minister said in his last 10 or 12 words is broadly what this amendment seeks. I am very grateful to the Minister. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

§
The noble Baroness said: When the subject of the amendment was first put to me I wondered what allotments had to do with the poll tax. However, after eight days in Committee, I am no longer surprised that anything has something to do with the poll tax. The amount that any local authority which is an allotment authority—that could be a district, parish or community council—can spend on the provision of allotments is limited in Section 16 of the Allotments Act 1922. It is limited to the total of what the council gets by way of receipts from allotments which it lets, plus such an amount as would be produced by a rate in its area of 0.8p. That is the only such limit on a specific local authority function. It is a relic of a much older way of considering the conferment and financing of functions.

§
I am told that it was thought probable that the limit would be abolished in the 1972 Act when other older legislation vanished in the Local Government Act of that year. However, it was thought that the allotments law would soon be codified. Therefore, no interim changes were made in that Act. The law is now outdated and the only present-day effect is to inhibit those authorities with limited resources from making appropriate provision for allotments when both the authority and those who want the allotments would like to have them.

§
The limit will have to be expressed in a different way once the community charge has come into force. It is an arbitrary limit, and because the cost of allotment provision in an area bears no relation to the rate of product or any other factors I hope that the Minister will agree that the easiest and most sensible way to answer the question of what we do with a 0.8p rate limit when we no longer have rates is to abolish it. I beg to move.

I hope that my noble friend on the Front Bench will take the amendment seriously. I say that not only because I love repealing schedules and am sorry that this one is not much longer but also because I know that the noble Baroness shares with me an interest and concern in allotments. It was in the county in which we both live and have done for many years that the first and largest statutory
484
smallholdings and allotments estate was to be found. If it be a fact that the law is obsolete, I hope that it will be added to the repeal schedule whether or not, technically speaking, that is the right place for it.

I am happy to say that we accept the principle of the amendment moved by the noble Baroness. We have for some time regarded the provision of allotments as a matter for individual local authorities to decide. They are in the best position to assess what proportion of their resources they can allocate for allotment purposes and, in the light of local circumstances, whether they can justify expenditure in excess of the receipts from allotments.

We believe that the present limitation serves no useful purpose. Unfortunately, however, I cannot accept the amendment as it stands. Schedule 16 can only include legislation which is expressly repealed in the Bill or as a necessary consequence of the Bill's provisions. These amendments do not meet those criteria.

The existing limitation provision will however become unworkable when general rates are abolished and will require amendment. Clause 145 of the Bill provides a power to make such consequential amendments by amending, repealing or revoking provisions in other legislation. I can therefore assure the noble Baroness that when we come to make orders under that provision we shall give effect to the point of her amendments which is to leave the matter of allotment spending to local decision.

It is pleasing to come to one of the final amendments in this great schedule of amendments we have had over eight days on such a happy note from the Minister. I am delighted, as I know that people who asked me to look after this point will be.

§
The noble Lord said: This amendment is consequential on Amendments Nos. 184A, 184B, and 184C, to which the House agreed last Tuesday. Those amendments altered the current law on certain matters of rating and valuation. The inclusion of those amendments in the Bill has extended its coverage slightly, and the change which this amendment seeks to make to the long title reflects this. I beg to move.